If not Obama... who?

[Liar Loan]

And yesterday Newt won his first poll, however it was conducted by a Democratic-leaning organization.  Not sure if that had any influence on the results or not.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1114925.pdf

Gingrich takes lead nationally
Raleigh, N.C. ? Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's national polling. He's at 28%
to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is
increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann
and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at
1%.

He also came in second in the CNN poll, just 2 points behind Mitt, with Cain trailing badly.

 

[Liar Loan]

Thank you for chiming in.  I think what you say is a possibility, but Romney's words are not taken seriously by a lot of people.  He has a history of flipping and flopping and then flipping again depending on which office he's running for.  I wouldn't vote for Romney simply because I don't have a clue what he really stands for.  Also, his business past conducting M&A's and laying off thousands in the process hurts his middle class credibility in my opinion.  Obama will exploit this. 

Romney is a Rockefeller Republican and he's loved in the Northeast but reviled in the South.  If he can't win in the South, then he can't win the Presidency.  The conventional thinking that he is the most electable candidate ignores this fact.  Every Republican president since Nixon has swept the South.  I don't think Romney can do it.

In other news...

Iowa is in a 4-way statistical tie according to the latest poll:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ay-republican-dead-heat-in-iowa-caucuses.html

Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in a dead heat as the top choices for Iowans likely to attend the Jan. 3 Republican presidential caucuses.

A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.

Stay tuned folks... This is about to get interesting.

 

[Liar Loan]

Nationally, every poll in the past two weeks is showing Newt in the lead, and this is with Cain still in the race splitting the vote with him. With Cain about to leave the race, Newt has this thing about wrapped up. 

Of the 5 early states, Romney will almost certainly win New Hampshire, but I think Newt will take Iowa, along with the two Southern states, North Carolina and Florida.  Nevada is favored to go Romney's way, but the last poll was taken about 5 weeks ago so it will be interesting to see if the "conservative" vote consolidates behind Newt enough to push him ahead there.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

So are you saying Obama for 4 more?

 

[Liar Loan]

The conventional wisdom is that defeating Newt would be a slam dunk. 

(Unfortunately, I could only find this photo of the President making a jump shot.)

However, the latest poll shows Newt is the only Republican candidate capable of defeating Obama.
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...sidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

The Newt Gingrich surge has moved him to the top of the polls in Iowa, big gains in New Hampshire and now a two-point edge over President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%.

According to the same poll, Romney cannot defeat Obama.

Romney is the only GOP candidate who has been ahead of the president more than a single time. For most of the year, he and President Obama were essentially even. Currently, Romney trails Obama by six. While the president typically leads named Republicans, a generic Republican candidate consistently leads the president.

Earlier in the year, Romney was tied with Obama but that was before most Republican voters had tuned in and vetted the other candidates.  Now that they have, Romney's spillover name recognition from the '08 election is not the advantage it once was.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

So... 4 more years of Change... and Hope.

I'm actually happy with Obama... except for Obamacare.

Maybe that will get ruled as unconstitutional and get repealed.

 

[Liar Loan]

I think the key for Obama is if the economy rapidly improves 11 months from now, he will get re-elected.  If the feeling of stagnation we've been experiencing for the past 1-2 years continues, or the economy gets worse, then Obama is toast.

I'm happy that he has ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the presence in Afghanistan.  His foreign policy has been much better than Bush's.  The anti-business attitude of his admistration is what I dislike the most. When you oppress business then the economy sputters and no jobs get created.  It's funny how that works.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So... 4 more years of Change... and Hope.

I'm actually happy with Obama... except for Obamacare.

Maybe that will get ruled as unconstitutional and get repealed.

I'm quite happy with Obama especially with the healthcare.  No way that thing gets overturned, ever look at your paycheck and the deductions?  The government already mandates payments for social programs.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I'm quite happy with Obama especially with the healthcare.  No way that thing gets overturned, ever look at your paycheck and the deductions?  The government already mandates payments for social programs.

So because of that, the government should tax us for more?

The purpose of government isn't to provide free healthcare to the hypochondriacs (which by the way is going to increase costs)... it's not a right.

Unless you can find "universal healthcare" in the Preamble or the Bill of Rights... why should we have to pay for it?

 

[Liar Loan]

I'm quite happy with Obama especially with the healthcare.  No way that thing gets overturned, ever look at your paycheck and the deductions?  The government already mandates payments for social programs.

Obamacare isn't structured that way.  How can you support it and not know that?

It provides a windfall to health insurance companies by mandating that all uninsured Americans buy insurance.  This type of thing is legal at the state level, but un-Constitutional at the federal level. 

It would be the same as Congress requiring that we all buy American made cars for the benefit of American workers, because a job is a right.  How would the Supreme Court rule on that?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I'm quite happy with Obama especially with the healthcare.  No way that thing gets overturned, ever look at your paycheck and the deductions?  The government already mandates payments for social programs.

Obamacare isn't structured that way.  How can you support it and not know that?

It provides a windfall to health insurance companies by mandating that all uninsured Americans buy insurance.  This type of thing is legal at the state level, but un-Constitutional at the federal level. 

It would be the same as Congress requiring that we all buy American made cars for the benefit of American workers, because a job is a right.  How would the Supreme Court rule on that?

It is set up the same way.  The mandated money does not go to the insurance company, it goes to a pool for the states that serves as a back up to those who elect not get health insurance.  It's basically like the State Compensation Fund or Medicare.  It acts as a backup in case you don't have the choice to get insurance.  Both of those are funded by mandates. 

Cars are a luxury item.  All of us get sick at some point, just like all of us get old.  If you believe that healthcare is a luxury item, then you and I disagree.  Public education is not a "right" until the Supreme Court said it was in Brown v. Board of Education.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I don't necessarily believe in Social Security or Medicare either.

The problem with the government handling our tax dollars for these programs is $1 can become 10 cents... not very efficient.

And while most feel these social programs fall under the preamble of "promoting general welfare"... I think these guys put it best:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
- Benjamin Franklin.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson

The government needs to limit itself to take care of things laid out by the Constitution, let the states/locals and people do the rest.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I don't necessarily believe in Social Security or Medicare either.

The problem with the government handling our tax dollars for these programs is $1 can become 10 cents... not very efficient.

And while most feel these social programs fall under the preamble of "promoting general welfare"... I think these guys put it best:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
- Benjamin Franklin.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson

The government needs to limit itself to take care of things laid out by the Constitution, let the states/locals and people do the rest.

1)  Then you and I disagree about role of the government
2)  I could care less about what the "founding fathers" said.  They supported slavery and did not let women vote.  The world we have now is completely different than the one in 1776.  The guiding principles are there but to say that people should not have health insurance because Ben Franklin wouldn't like it does nothing for me.
3)  Yes, the government can be inefficient but the last time I check, many of the governmental services in this country work pretty darn well.  The road I travel are mostly well maintained, the public school is overall decent, the police/fire department come when I call them, and the court system generally works.  Government is like the post office, they do all the jobs that lose money and would never exist in a true market system.  People trust the free market and corporations who's main and only goal is to make money. 

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million residents (which includes 9.9 million non-citizens) or 16.7% of the population were uninsured in 2009.  More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.  Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country.  A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

This is from Wiki so it's not a watertight source but it sums up the issues well.  To pretend that this is not a critical issue in this country is to put one head in the sand.

 

[MovingOnUp]

I don't necessarily believe in Social Security or Medicare either.

The problem with the government handling our tax dollars for these programs is $1 can become 10 cents... not very efficient.

And while most feel these social programs fall under the preamble of "promoting general welfare"... I think these guys put it best:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
- Benjamin Franklin.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson

The government needs to limit itself to take care of things laid out by the Constitution, let the states/locals and people do the rest.

You must've googled, "ye olde quotes". Didn't Jefferson own slaves and probably Franklin? Very hypocritical quotes.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@Irvinecommuter:

As for what our forefathers did, or how the world was back then... I'm not telling you to look at their lives... look at the concept of their words... it still should apply today and even 2000 years into the future.

On number 3, we are talking about different things. Do you think the role of the *federal* government is to do all those things? The things you are satisfied with are at the local/state level... dollars are more efficient the closer it is to the issue.

As for your Wiki stats... does it tell you why medical costs are so high? Does it go into how much is spent on uninsured people? That's also a big expense... how much the US spends on providing medical services to non-citizens and uninsured. The other side of the coin is that because of privatization, the quality of specialized US medical services is very high... that's why people from other countries that do have universal healthcare come to the US (which also has to do with government inefficiency). And I'm not saying it's not a issue... but it doesn't mean they will go away with Obamacare.

Are you happy with how the federal government has handled the banks/economy/wars? Imagine your healthcare under the same oversight.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

@Irvinecommuter:

As for what our forefathers did, or how the world was back then... I'm not telling you to look at their lives... look at the concept of their words... it still should apply today and even 2000 years into the future.

I am not looking at their lives...I am looking at what they saw, experience, and their opinions.  They lived in a world where slavery, oppression, sexism, racism, and all sorts of social evils existed but were deemed to be normal.  Their world views and opinions are shaped by their experiences.  Those would be vastly different if Thomas Jefferson lived in 2011 and was not a white wealthy male with political power.

On number 3, we are talking about different things. Do you think the role of the *federal* government is to do all those things? The things you are satisfied with are at the local/state level... dollars are more efficient the closer it is to the issue.

Why is the state/local government better?  Have you seen California's finances or how Irvine has handled the Great Park?  Disastrous.  Giving money to the state/local is antithetical of us being a country.  The federal government sees things in a bigger picture whereas the states do thing that may be beneficial to their citizen but bad for other people in the union.  People do not stay in one place...if Nevada has an epidemic/serious health issues, they would just drive across the border to get health insurance here. 

As for your Wiki stats... does it tell you why medical costs are so high? Does it go into how much is spent on uninsured people? That's also a big expense... how much the US spends on providing medical services to non-citizens and uninsured. The other side of the coin is that because of privatization, the quality of specialized US medical services is very high... that's why people from other countries that do have universal healthcare come to the US (which also has to do with government inefficiency). And I'm not saying it's not a issue... but it doesn't mean they will go away with Obamacare.

Medical costs in this country are high for a number of reasons, one is that most people receive critical not preventative care.  Thus they get treated with acute care (which is extremely expensive) rather than trying to stopping a small problem from getting a lot worse.  People also have a strong desire in this country to keep themselves alive for as long as possible, even if it means spending a huge amount of money to keep someone alive 5 minutes longer.  Finally, the uninsured issue is a giant problem which can only be rectified if all people get insurance and spread out the medical care. 

The healthcare plan is not a panacea but it's a step in the right direction.  Personally, I would like to see universal healthcare where there can more control of costs.  Medicare has a lower waste rate than private insurance and a single payer system would not have to spend money for advertising or slick notepads.

the quality of specialized US medical services is very high... that's why people from other countries that do have universal healthcare come to the US (which also has to do with government inefficiency).

I really dislike this argument.  Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Norway, Finland, France all have socialized medicine and their healthcare is just fine.  In fact, I know many Taiwanese Americans who are going back to Taiwan because they can get high-level care and universal healthcare in Taiwan. 

Also, what point is having high level health care IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO GET TREATED?  It's like shopping at Fashion Island/South Coast Plaza, the stores are nice and the merchandise are fancy but out of reach for many.

Are you happy with how the federal government has handled the banks/economy/wars? Imagine your healthcare under the same oversight.

Banks:  How did we get here in the first place?  Oh yeah, deregulation and free market going crazy.

Economcy:  Ditto

Wars:  I am not sure what this means.

 

[Liar Loan]

It is set up the same way.  The mandated money does not go to the insurance company, it goes to a pool for the states that serves as a back up to those who elect not get health insurance.  It's basically like the State Compensation Fund or Medicare.  It acts as a backup in case you don't have the choice to get insurance.  Both of those are funded by mandates. 

Cars are a luxury item.  All of us get sick at some point, just like all of us get old.  If you believe that healthcare is a luxury item, then you and I disagree.  Public education is not a "right" until the Supreme Court said it was in Brown v. Board of Education.

For whatever reason, you are obfuscating the fact that Obamacare requires people to purchase insurance that they may not want or face paying a penalty tax of 2.5% of their income.  The revenue from those purchased insurance policies goes directly to insurance companies and they know most of the unwilling buyers will be at low risk for getting sick, so it's very profitable for them.  The majority of these individuals are young, single, and childless.  Saying that "everybody eventually gets sick" ignores that younger people generally do not get sick.  That's why insurance executives love this scheme.  Free money.  They win, and their unwilling customers lose.

A vehicle is not a luxury item.  There are relatively few adults, even poor adults, that do not own a vehicle to get around.  Therefore, why not mandate we buy American only for the benefit of our economy?  This was, after all, one of the justifications for passing Obamacare.

Brown vs. Board of Education was a segregation case.  The law of the land has to be applied in an equal manner.  To my knowledge the arguments against Obamacare are based on violations of the Commerce Clause, not the Equal Protection clause.  Congress does not have the right to mandate private transactions between individuals and corporations.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@Irvinecommuter:

I understand what you're saying... but that's not my point. I agree that healthcare is an issue in the US... but to further burden taxpayers isn't a good solution to me.

I don't think it's "constitutional" for the government to decide what to do with our tax dollars, especially on things that are not considered "rights".

I believe you started a similar topic on the IHB and what Nude says better explains what I'm trying to say:
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/6143/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

It is set up the same way.  The mandated money does not go to the insurance company, it goes to a pool for the states that serves as a back up to those who elect not get health insurance.  It's basically like the State Compensation Fund or Medicare.  It acts as a backup in case you don't have the choice to get insurance.  Both of those are funded by mandates. 

Cars are a luxury item.  All of us get sick at some point, just like all of us get old.  If you believe that healthcare is a luxury item, then you and I disagree.  Public education is not a "right" until the Supreme Court said it was in Brown v. Board of Education.

For whatever reason, you are obfuscating the fact that Obamacare requires people to purchase insurance that they may not want or face paying a penalty tax of 2.5% of their income.  The revenue from those purchased insurance policies goes directly to insurance companies and they know most of the unwilling buyers will be at low risk for getting sick, so it's very profitable for them.  The majority of these individuals are young, single, and childless.  Saying that "everybody eventually gets sick" ignores that younger people generally do not get sick.  That's why insurance executives love this scheme.  Free money.  They win, and their unwilling customers lose.

Then why should people with no children have to pay taxes to fund public education?  Why should pacifists pay taxes to fund the military?  Why should I pay for the police and fire department when I have never called them in my life?  We live in a society.  There are social contracts in which people give up certain rights in order to gain the benefits of society.  If you want to go out in the wilderness and live on your own you are welcome to do so but to say that people should not have pay for things that they do not receive direct benefits for is plain selfishness.

A vehicle is not a luxury item.  There are relatively few adults, even poor adults, that do not own a vehicle to get around.  Therefore, why not mandate we buy American only for the benefit of our economy?  This was, after all, one of the justifications for passing Obamacare.

A vehicle is absolutely a luxury item.  There are other alternative travel methods but are much less convenient.  Also, you live in California, there are many other places where cars are not a necessity but a luxury.  Also, that's not the justification for passing health care reform.  The justification that it is a burden on our economy and needs to be addressed.  Also nearly a third of the US population is uninsured or underinsured...it's not just an economic issue.

Brown vs. Board of Education was a segregation case.  The law of the land has to be applied in an equal manner.  To my knowledge the arguments against Obamacare are based on violations of the Commerce Clause, not the Equal Protection clause.  Congress does not have the right to mandate private transactions between individuals and corporations

1)  To get to equal protection, the SC had to find that the right to public education is a fundamental right.  Which it did.  Otherwise, there is no right to apply.

2)  There was no law of the land, each state had its own laws.  The SC stepped in and said no...public education is a fundamental right and you can't deny people of that right

3)  Brown only dealt with public education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968 are the key legislation that help eliminate segregation.  Guess what Congress used to pass those...that's right the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce.

4)  Really, why can the government tell a guy running a burger shop that he has to serve black people?  Or that his store has to have certain health standards?  Why can the government tell people to pay a little extra money out of their paycheck in order to fund medicare and social security?  Why can the government mandate that employers pay money into a workers' compensation fund?  Because they affect the commerce of this county.

 

[Liar Loan]

Then why should people with no children have to pay taxes to fund public education?  Why should pacifists pay taxes to fund the military?  Why should I pay for the police and fire department when I have never called them in my life?  We live in a society.  There are social contracts in which people give up certain rights in order to gain the benefits of society.  If you want to go out in the wilderness and live on your own you are welcome to do so but to say that people should not have pay for things that they do not receive direct benefits for is plain selfishness.

Requiring the purchase of a product is not a government tax, nor is it a social contract.  Why do you keep framing it as such?  It is the transfer of wealth from mostly young, poor people to insurance companies.  It's also blatantly in violation of our Constitution.  This can't be said for the other things you mentioned.

1)  To get to equal protection, the SC had to find that the right to public education is a fundamental right.  Which it did.  Otherwise, there is no right to apply.

2)  There was no law of the land, each state had its own laws.  The SC stepped in and said no...public education is a fundamental right and you can't deny people of that right

3)  Brown only dealt with public education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968 are the key legislation that help eliminate segregation.  Guess what Congress used to pass those...that's right the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce.

4)  Really, why can the government tell a guy running a burger shop that he has to serve black people?  Or that his store has to have certain health standards?  Why can the government tell people to pay a little extra money out of their paycheck in order to fund medicare and social security?  Why can the government mandate that employers pay money into a workers' compensation fund?  Because they affect the commerce of this county.

1)  Did the finding of education as a fundamental right give Congress the authority to require the purchase of private education?  No, it did not.

2)  It doesn't matter that each state had, and still does have, its own education laws.  The Equal Protection clause is specific about applying to state laws.  Calling something a fundamental right does not grant Congress unbridled authority to impose commerce on people against their will.

3)  Public education is not subject to the Commerce Clause.  Obamacare on the other hand is.  Your history lesson on de-segregatation is fine and dandy but it really has no bearing on this discussion.

4)  Can the government tell a black guy he needs to buy a burger from a burger shop?  Why or why not?