Thursday, July 25, 2013

One of America's Greatest Pastimes, Early Polling...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



American's are an interesting bunch. Stubborn and fickle at the same time. Especially Republicans. But then again I question just why in the hell anyone is concerning themselves with the 2016 presidential race two years out? I guess it's because we're... Americans?

Public Policy Polling -

PPP's newest look at the Republican field for 2016 finds some big changes from our previous polling. Marco Rubio, who had led all of our polling since December, has dropped all the way to 6th place. Rand Paul now has the lead nationally, to go along with the leads he posted in our most recent Iowa and New Hampshire polls. And Ted Cruz has already hit double digits.

The numbers are: Paul 16, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan each at 13, Cruz at 12, Rubio at 10, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal at 4, and Susana Martinez at 2. Cruz has proven to be such a darling to the far right that he actually already leads among 'very conservative' voters with 20% to 18% for Paul and 17% for Ryan. Christie gets 24% with 'moderate' identifying Republicans but doesn't do better overall because he's at just 7% with 'very conservative' ones.

Rubio was at 21 or 22% on all of our polls between January and March but his support has now dropped to half that level. Meanwhile Paul has vaulted into the lead after starting the year at only 5% in our polling, perhaps owing to the positive attention he received from conservatives after his filibuster earlier this year. Christie and Bush have remained consistently in the 12-15% range in all of our polling.
The Republicans are looking more competitive with Hillary Clinton than they were in some of our earlier polling this year. She still leads all of the GOP hopefuls but in many of the cases it's by tight margins- 1 point over Chris Christie at 43/42, 2 points over Paul Ryan at 46/44, 3 points over Jeb Bush at 44/41, 5 points over Marco Rubio at 45/40, and 8 points over Rand Paul at 47/39. Obviously it's early but you can see a picture here that's been painted in many key Senate races over the last two cycles- the person with the most support from Republicans is also the weakest general election candidate.

Joe Biden does on average 6 points worse than Hillary against the various Republican possibilities. He trails Christie by 6 points at 45/39, Bush by 4 points at 45/41, and Ryan by 3 points at 46/43. He does at least manage ties with Paul and Rubio at 43% and 42% respectively.

Clinton continues to dominate the Democratic race, although her 40 point lead this month is down a bit from 50 and 46 points on our previous two polls. She's at 52% to 12% for Biden, 6% for Elizabeth Warren, 5% for Kirsten Gillibrand, and 3% for Cory Booker with no one else above 2%.

In a Clinton-less field Biden leads with 34% to 13% for Warren, 10% for Andrew Cuomo, and 4% for Booker with no one else above 3%. And in a field without either Clinton or Biden the leader for the first time is Elizabeth Warren who gets 20% to 11% for Cuomo, 8% for Booker, and 5% for Gillibrand. Full results here

Via: Memeorandum

75 comments:

  1. The second mouse will get a lot cheese. The cat gets a treat too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Got the numbers on Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Allen West and Rick Santorum?

    Hint: They add up to Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joe Biden is no doubt gearing up for his 1916 Presidential run.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Christie, Jindal, and Jeb I would possibly consider. The rest of those individuals probably not.......As for Ms. Hillary, only if she governs like Bill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christie, most definitely worth a look. Jeb, not a chance, something about dynasties.

      Hillary, not the centrist Bubba was. IMNHO she's too far left.

      If Johnson runs he gets my support. This nation has to break the two party dominance.

      Delete
  5. Picture Bluto Blutarsky leading the chant of "It just doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter!"

    The bipartisan Progressive Long March will continue until they've finally used up everyone else's money.

    Even if the GOP takes over everything, Obamacare will not be repealed. Too many Goopers are addicted to power and the money that flows from wielding it.

    If I were a betting man, I would put it all on President Hillary Clinton.

    The press will do their usual job of putting their favored GOOPer candidate on a pedestal during the primaries, then sapping and chiseling away at the pedestal during the general election. The quickest way for Jebbie Bush or Christie to fall out of favor and become a sinister villain would be to gain the GOOP nomination for president. Anyone who hasn't figured that game out hasn't been paying attention.

    We may never see a GOOPer president again, and I can't come up with a reason why that's a bad thing.

    Even the great Ronald Reagan, who conservatives long to see resurrected, could just barely slow the statist stampede. He was the high water mark. Stop and think about that for a moment.

    I hate to break it to you, folks, but too many Americans love their big government goodies, and they love being lied to by those who dispense them. It's a classic Stockholm syndrome where the abused cannot pry herself away from the abuser.

    We love our fairy tales about a land where money grows on trees and the good times never end.

    Democrat and Republican are in reality just two wings of the same Statist Oligarchic party.

    But hey, it's Friday! And there's probably some cool pop culture crap going on! Not to mention ball sports! So let' all screw on crooked a ball cap emblazoned with the logo of our favorite corporate entity and cheer for our favorite millionaire!

    -- Silverfiddle (Too young to be a curmudgeon. Too old and too burdened with family responsibilities to punch out)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I hate to break it to you, folks, but too many Americans love their big government goodies, and they love being lied to by those who dispense them."

      With that you have said a mouthful of truth. Unfortunately the two party system today operates to protect the power of, well, the two party system. I suppose it always has.

      However, today we have a increasing number of low information voters, those who simply are to busy, or doubt care enough, so they vote based on the party they think can give THEM and THEIR particular interests the most government goodies.

      Social security was a good idea in THEORY. And it would have worked well had it been operated as true trust fund and the raiding of the fund had been off limits. Unfortunately the administration of FDR, the man responsible for lying to the American people about it being a trust fund went to court immediately to argue the funds should be made available for general fund use as determined by the government. We've been raiding it and dropping in IOU's every since.

      From SS concept has spawned medicare, medicaid, part D, and now ObamaCare, what is most alarming as well as frightening is the history of our government's inability to manage budgets and control the pork train that has become DC.

      It is not that the concepts of security nets, social or otherwise are so bad. Rather what is so bad is the government's inability to manage them and kept them solvent.

      Additionally there is a tendency for some individuals to use the security net system the government provides to live off of and rather than become the most productive they can be they lose the incentive because their big brother (Gov.)is there to help take care of that which they either can't or won't do for themselves.

      This issue is complex, and yes a nation needs to be concerned about the social upheaval that occurs when large percentages of the populace are unable to find work and take care of their families. But, there must be a limit and the government needs to recognize the importance incentives for ALL people to be productive. Even those who are content to be very lazy and happy with Big Brother taking care of the.

      Now, having said this, BUSINESSES in this nation, the ones who outsource and offshore to increase profits meed to think about the impact to a nation in which the only jobs are service sector jobs flipping hamburgers at $8:00/hr for people who are working only part time as temps because it is in the best interest (SHORT TERM INTEREST) of the business that employs them.

      Like I said the issues are complex, the long term social implications for this nation are immense, it is not still 1776, or even 1950. Paradigms must begin changing and our responses to the new world economic realities better spur the nation to begin thinking a bit differently (on both sides of the political aisle) or we will undoubtedly become a third world power.

      Delete
    2. Les said: "Now, having said this, BUSINESSES in this nation, the ones who outsource and offshore to increase profits meed to think about the impact to a nation..."

      The businesses only do what they are encouraged to do. Forced unionization, ridiculous overtaxation, and the types of regulations which serve no good purpose only force them to offshore jobs.

      Get rid of these problems, and the jobs come back. Last December, the Michigan legislature acted in the interests of working people and make union membership a choice of workers. No more forced unionization. A state union boss lamented that this would cause all those jobs to come flooding back from China... and the state was better off without those jobs. Really.

      Delete
    3. I disagree dmarks... I sat with business people and managers (like myself) for too many years to buy the choir line.

      Experience teaches the willing.

      Delete
    4. Les: do you disagree that businesses tend to do what policies force them to do?

      Delete
    5. We are not talking about just policy here. At least I'm not. I have been around long enough to know that typically labor is about 10% of total cost on average. Yet it one of the first places businesses look to cut How do I know? Been there, and been forced to do that when I lost the argument. Even lost a position once because I refused to let a couple of good supervisors go once in response to a short term economic dislocation. The owner got rid of me and my salary with was approximately what the total of the two supervisors salaries were.

      Delete
  6. It's not that they love them, they are dependent on them because of a deal/promise between the American people and their government made over 80 years ago. Everything was going fine until we decided not to pay for those programs, BEFORE we canceled those programs.
    Silverguitar

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon: The only part of your statement I agree with is that the government made promises. It was never 'going fine.'

      We had an anomalous 20 year period after WWII when we were the only industrial power standing. We got fat, dumb and lazy, and the rest of the world began eating our lunch as our debt stacked up.

      There's not enough money in the entire nation to pay for those pie in the sky deals.

      Tax everyone at 100% and you couldn't pay for all the government promises made at the federal, state and local level.

      But don't take my word for it. Just look at pensions. Your average government pension plane makes unrealistic assumptions along the lines of over 7% return on investment every year, in perpetuity. That is irresponsible.

      Add in how little these government employees pay into their own pension and health care funds, and the picture gets uglier. On top of it all, retiring and then living thirty more years exacerbates it even further. And those deals where they log outrageous overtime the last year in order to pump up the retirement check is downright fraudulent.

      Higher taxes? Annual US GDP is around $15 trillion. That doesn't even begin to cover it.

      Pull your head out and do some research. Your ignorance makes you part of the problem.

      -- Silverfiddle

      Delete
    2. Silver Guitar: We pay for these programs... and then some. We over-pay, in fact.

      Sounds like the same old tired claim from Anon/Sammy.

      Delete
    3. So government workers pensions is why we are 17 trillion in debt? Thanks for the laugh.
      Silverguitar

      Delete
    4. Sammy the Hitler Baby carelessly said:

      "So government workers pensions is why we are 17 trillion in debt? Thanks for the laugh."

      It is actually a huge chunk of it. $2.5 trillion, as of a year ago.

      Check Time Magazine

      Greedy, underworked, public "servants" who have a "what's in it for me?"attitude (no matter how much it degrades government services) that smacks of being downright unpatriotic. It is destroying services and spiraling debt at the federal level, the state level, and the smallest local level.

      $2.5 trillion is much higher than the total combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from when they started until this very moment.

      And I doubt it has gotten better. And this doesn't count how wastefully shoveling money at fat and sassy public "servants" has bankrupted California.

      You laugh, but that is because, Sammy, you are so badly uninformed, and you think that the solution caused by gross overspending is not to fix the spending problem, but to further steal from the American people.

      Delete
    5. I don't know who Sammy is, but thanks for proving my point.
      Silverguitar

      Delete
    6. The thing about posting as Anon is that nobody can be CERTAIN who the hell you are. You could be one of the zillions of others. In other words you have NO balls. Or maybe it's a no vagina?

      Delete
    7. Whether or not it is posting as a copper kazoo or a bronze bassoon, its true colors come out eventually. I was wondering if Sammy was disgraced former journalist Keith Olbermann...with posting comments ere being the closest thing to a political commentator position that miserable failure could get any more.

      But now I see Keith has a new job talking about grown men running after balls, and Sammy is still here. There goes my theory.

      Delete
  7. 'Silverguitar' is not me, and he is only correct in that governments made promises to people. Extremely outlandish promises, I would add.

    The rest it is economic and fiscal ignorance.

    But don't take my word for it. Here is an Economist article, and they are not known as a righwing rag...

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582258-it-not-just-detroit-american-cities-and-states-must-promise-less-or-face-disaster


    And in case my previous comment got eaten by the Google Blooger....

    Anon: The only part of your statement I agree with is that the government made promises. It was never 'going fine.'

    We had an anomalous 20 year period after WWII when we were the only industrial power standing. We got fat, dumb and lazy, and the rest of the world began eating our lunch as our debt stacked up.

    There's not enough money in the entire nation to pay for those pie in the sky deals.

    Tax everyone at 100% and you couldn't pay for all the government promises made at the federal, state and local level.

    But don't take my word for it. Just look at pensions. Your average government pension plane makes unrealistic assumptions along the lines of over 7% return on investment every year, in perpetuity. That is irresponsible.

    Add in how little these government employees pay into their own pension and health care funds, and the picture gets uglier. On top of it all, retiring and then living thirty more years exacerbates it even further. And those deals where they log outrageous overtime the last year in order to pump up the retirement check is downright fraudulent.

    Higher taxes? Annual US GDP is around $15 trillion. That doesn't even begin to cover it.

    Pull your head out and do some research. Your ignorance makes you part of the problem.

    -- Silverfiddle

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was reading this Charles Krauthammer article when a question occurred to me:

    Given the rampant corruption and staggering debt, what makes the Democrat destruction of Detroit any different than Enron?

    If anything, Enron pales in comparison to this... The human suffering and financial ruin in the fall of Detroit is on a much grander scale.

    And, like Solyndra and other mini-scandals, it was public-financed!

    -- Silverfiddle

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why is it that the Conservative answer to everything is to make life worse for the everyday Joe?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all due respect jmj if you believe ALL conservatives think that way, which your partisan statement implies you ARE certifiably crazy.

      Delete
    2. And Jersey, a perfect example of conservatives making life better for the average Joe is the Michigan right-to-work reform. Now, workers won't be fired for refusing to give hundreds or thousands of dollars every year to political campaigns.

      Delete
    3. Les said: "With all due respect jmj if you believe ALL conservatives think that way, which your partisan statement implies you ARE certifiably crazy."

      I can easily find some policies from the other side which help the average Joe too. That a person might be able to cross the divide, ever, in such a fashion is a strong indication that they switch their brain off when they see a (D) or an (R) after someone's name, and they end up engaging in boosterism/fandom no different from rooting for the home team on Friday night. And booing for the team from the other school.

      Delete
    4. Les, it's not like any conservative necessarily wants his fellow man to be worse off, let alone do they ever announce that as their goal, but for Christ's sake why is most every answer to most every problem lower wages, less benefits, more hours working, less school, no more roads and bridges and rails and airports and ports, offshoring, importing from communist and totalitarian and militant and backwards states, continuing the status quo of illegal labor, and on and on and on and on? Do the cons have anything positive to offer?

      That's what I'm asking. I wasn't really asking you, though, Les. You're not a con. I thought you were well aware that I know that. ;)

      Now dmarks? He's a con. He's not just any con either. He's the Consummate Ubercon.

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. Jersey:How can I be an ubercon if I disagree with most if not all of your"bullet list" goals?

      Specifically the one on immigration, because it was discussed a lot recently. I am even less "status quo" than you. Maybe you are the ubercon.

      As for "more hours working" sorry, Jersey, I don't think it is awful if people want to work 40 hours a week, even if it above the 30 hour cut off line from Obama.

      Delete
    6. dmarks,

      Do you want millions of undocumented immigrants to receive legal papers and a large portion of them, possibly a substantial majority, to become US citizens?

      Do you think the minimum wage should be abolished, that the state should offer no assistance for education or healthcare, that the war machine is worth the cost?

      You are the pan-ultimate ubercon.

      JMJ

      Delete
    7. Sometime it's just impossible to get past the partisanship isn't it jmj...

      Delete
    8. Jersey asked - "Do you want millions of undocumented immigrants to receive legal papers and a large portion of them, possibly a substantial majority, to become US citizens?"

      If they have been here a while, and are law-abiding and working... probably. This is NOT a conservative position.

      "Do you think the minimum wage should be abolished"

      Absolutely. People should be paid a fair wage: the real value of the work. Yes, you have hit on a conservative position, because conservatives know that every minimum wage increase forces companies to fire thousands of people, if not more.

      The issue of people having low skills and sometimes not earning enough to get out of poverty must be addressed, in a means-tested fashion though. It is purely insane, counterproductive, and wasteful, though to have a minimum age in place: which forces business (mostly small ones) to handout unearned money to a group that is largely teens in starter jobs, and only has a very small proportion of people who are breadwinners.

      "that the state should offer no assistance for education or healthcare"

      I strongly believe in public education, and college aid for poor people, and free healthcare/assistance for the poor. This too is a conservative position.

      "that the war machine is worth the cost?"

      Defending the nation is top priority according to the Constitution. But I am sure there can be ways found to reduce military spending by a lot...even 25% ? if we look. Make of it what you will.

      "You are the pan-ultimate ubercon."

      I suppose, if you are making new definitions. And are making up one of ubercon to go along with neocon and paleocon. But there won't be many conservatives in my group, that's for sure....

      Delete
    9. It is with dmarks.

      I'd still love someone to answer me this, though: Do the cons have anything positive to offer?

      JMJ

      Delete
    10. Depends on your perceptipn of positive and fiscal responsibility. Oh, and your constant referral to conservatives as cons is annoying. Why, because we all know your implication. So given that the reference word "cons" applies to progressives as well jmj.

      Delete
    11. dmarks, just for the sake of discussion, what do you think would happen if the minimum wage were abolished.

      1) employers would do the right thing...
      2) wages would immediately be reduced except were governed by union/management labor contract
      3) some other scenario?
      4) what do you see as the economic impact and why.

      Delete
    12. 1) What is "the right thing"? If they pay too little, no one will work for them.

      2) According to the BLS, 5% of hourly-paid workers are paid at the minimum rate. According to the Huffington Post, hourly paid workers are about 60% of all workers. That means that any change in the minimum wage would at most affect about 3% of workers. A certain percentage of this 3% is doing work worth the minimum wage, so these would not be changed. That leaves less than 3% who would be affected possibly by a lower wage.

      That leaves 97% of workers who would be entirely unaffacted. Of these, about 10% have the union contracts you mention. That leas 87%...

      There are also a lot of workers who would go from unemployed to employed after this change: which is a HUGE leap in income for them.

      3) ?

      4) Low-skilled workers who are kept unemployed due to the minimum wage laws would get jobs. For these individuals, there is a good economic impact for sure. Same with teenagers who would earn low wages in "starter" jobs. "Main street" would benefit also by doing a better job, having better service, as it would be a lot easier to employ clerks, etc.

      ----------

      I take it, Les, you are OK with minimum wage values set by the government?

      Delete
    13. Les: About "Oh, and your constant referral to conservatives as cons is annoying"

      Jersey can be offensive, of course. He likes to call gay people "fa**ot". However, I don't see this one as offensive. Not any more than "Dems" or "Libs". You yourself happen to use "con" extensively. You like to put so- and neo- in front of it, but it is exactly the same... The same "con"

      Delete
    14. And Jersey, stop with the weasel words: "Do you want millions of undocumented immigrants..."

      It's illegal aliens. "Undocumented" is so clumsy and it is obvious that someone who uses that term has a problem using accurate terms.

      Delete
    15. Also Les... about the minimum wage. If you are saying it is OK to have because the percent clobbered by it is miniscule, why not then support DOMA? Or any other negative piece of legislation that hurts only a small minority?

      Delete
    16. In all probability have no minimum wage would likely have a very insignificant impact om hiring.

      Those who work for minimum wage live at or below poverty levels as it is. No minimum wage would result in those currently working atinimum wage sinking even deeper into poverty.

      DOMA, false equivalency dmarks.

      Delete
    17. "Those who work for minimum wage live at or below poverty levels as it is. No minimum wage would result in those currently working atinimum wage sinking even deeper into poverty."

      If this is the case, Les, then you are admitting that these individuals are overpaid (if their pay would go down once the minimum wage were abolished). Why not have the aid to those in poverty be given through a means-tested welfare program? Instead of being given directly by small businesses.... in a very sloppy way which means this handout is mostly given to others than those in poverty?

      This latter situation is what the minimum wage demands.

      The "poverty level" claim by you deserves a critical, reasonable look. Realize that the "poverty level" varies wildly between individuals. And for much of it: there is no such thing as a poverty wage.. .but there is such a thing as a poverty lifestyle choice.

      This latter situation is what the minimum wage demands.

      The DOMA comparison stands. You defended the minimum wage policy since it only hurt a small percentage of people. The same sort of logic can be used to defend the DOMA.

      Delete
    18. 1) Don't put words in my mouth dmarks.
      2) Perhaps Truth 101's observations were correct.
      3) You are beginning to sound an awful lot like wd/DS.
      4) Carry on...

      Time to move on to the bigger picture.

      Delete
    19. What did Truth 101 say? Wow.... wd/DS is on your side on this one, actually....

      Delete
    20. Something about word games, twisting words or salads. Something along those lines. Bur it's been awhile so the exact words have faded. That's the general idea though.

      Delete
  10. "Why is it that the Conservative answer to everything is to make life worse for the everyday Joe?"

    If that were actually the case, Jersey, we wouldn't be conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RN: Rep, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said 'we have to pass the law to know what's in it'.

    Never happened.

    Dennis: What bottom to top wealth transfer?

    The one that has been occurring while your head has been buried in the sand.

    An Anon claiming to be Silverfiddle: Free markets occur spontaneously.

    Health care insurance is a monopoly. The exchanges force competition. The Repubs oppose it because they want the HC insurance providers to be able to continue ripping us off.

    Dennis: [1] Tao... claims that a "reform" which diminishes consumer choice actually increases it... [2] If you want to move toward "consumer choice", eliminate the individual mandate. [3] I think there's a bottomless well (of stupidity) there. [4] ridiculous over taxation. [5] If that were actually the case, Jersey, we wouldn't be conservatives.

    [1] Never happened because there is no such reform. [2] So, you are also in favor of people being allowed to drive without insurance? Mittens Romney said the mandate was the Conservative way to go because it made people take "personal responsibility" and eliminated the "free rider" problem. Dennis is opposed to personal responsibility and thinks we should all pay when someone does not have insurance? Or does he think we should let them die like Ron Paul? [3] Dennis is an expert on the subject. [4] Imaginary. [5] You've switched parties Dennis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it did happen wd/DS, yes it did.

      Delete
    2. Concering Pelosi's statement:

      WD: "Never happened."

      Les: "Yes it did happen wd/DS, yes it did."

      Let's truth check this one, shall we?

      Fox News video, she is saying exactly this. WD, are you claiming that Fox used an actor, and this is not Nancy saying this?

      From US News and World Report: "Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It"

      Lots of other sources.

      And no, WD, people who pay their own way are not "free riders".

      Delete
    3. "Health care insurance is a monopoly"

      This is only true in nations with "single payer", North Korea etc.

      In the US, there are many insurance companies. Sorry, WD. Words mean things. You may think you can run with your own personal definition of words (which have included, in the past, "fascism" and "racism") but reality is a stubborn thing.

      How many are there? 35, from this source.

      How many are there, if there is a monopoly? Just one. From this source.

      If you think 1 = 35, there might be a place for you in a high position in Obama's treasury department. You would fit in well there.

      Delete
    4. And as for the "bottom to top" wealth transfer, WD, I checked into it. It is indeed happening. Tax policy, of course. This is what always happens. Under taxation, the ruled (the bottom) are forced under threat to transfer their wealth to the rulers (top).

      "You've switched parties Dennis?"

      OK, Greasy Chicken Man, let me check.... where's my party membership card? Oh. there's NONE. The only party I ever belonged to, Perot's Reform Party, is gone, near as I can tell. So, me switching parties is like a strict Amish person trading in his Chevy car for a Ford. Not applicable.

      Delete
    5. dmarks, gauging the VERY INSIGNIFICANT impact that the minimum wage law has, by the statistics you provided, I am of the mind to say, yes, I'm okay with the minimum wage law. I will also go so far as to say the statement it causes employers to bump huge numbers of workers is bullshit. The only ones doing that are the, well you fill in the blanks.

      Delete
    6. Thousands of people fired, Les, is not millions. But for them... the impact on their lives... it is huge.

      I would be ok with a minimum wage law if it was just below the actual natural minimum level. Then it would have zero impact.

      Delete
  12. Ron Paul hasn't died, Colonel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I guess that wd disagrees with Max Baucus and those three union fellas' (Hoffa, Hansen, and Taylor)....Which leads me to wonder, why does wd hate the unions?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bill O. is right:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/single-dad_n_3654232.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dennis: Concerning Pelosi's statement... Let's truth check this one, shall we?

    Yes, let us check it. The YouTube video you linked to proves me right. NP never said "we have to pass the law to know what's in it". Even you acknowledged RN's "error" when you correctly quote the video. NP actually said, "We have to pass the bill so *YOU* can find out what is in it". What RN said was that Nancy Pelosi didn't read the bill and she (and her fellow Democrats) didn't know what was in it. You have made this same argument in the past. NP never said that and the video you linked to PROVES it. You just proved yourself and RN wrong.

    Dennis: And no, WD, people who pay their own way are not "free riders".

    Huh? WTF are you talking about? The free riders are people without insurance that can't be turned away from emergency rooms (due to legislation signed by Ronald Reagan). These free riders (people NOT paying their own way) was the problem RomneyCare sought to address. But you dodged the question about what should be done in regards to these people... I asked if you thought they should be allowed to die as Ron Paul believes... and you pretened I said Ron Paul died. But silly misinterpretations like this are par for the course with Dennis.

    Single payer isn't a monopoly. A monopoly seeks to eliminate competition so they can gouge customers. Single Payer is not-for-profit and seeks to deliver HC insurance for the lowest possible price (no gouging). The HC insurers ARE a monopoly (many of these companies have the same owners) in that regard. It explains why they are able to get away with outrageous price increases... not enough competition. The ACA forces competition which is why Dennis opposes it... it decreases profits for the plutocrats.

    Dennis: Tax policy, of course. This is what always happens. Under taxation, the ruled (the bottom) are forced under threat to transfer their wealth to the rulers (top).

    No they aren't. Tax money is spent to benifit us all. The "rulers" aren't allowed to keep it.

    Dennis: OK, Greasy Chicken Man, let me check.... where's my party membership card?

    These juvenile insults do not bother me Dennis, as they only make you look bad. You've criticized me before for what you call Juvenile behavior (Fox Nooz), but here you are doing it yourself, but worse. Fox does very little News, thus me referring to their propaganda as "Nooz" is vaild. But I have nothing to do with KFC. Do you insult anyone with the last name of Sanders the same way? A commenter on my blog said you call yourself "dmarks" because that is what you got in school... "D marks". Maybe you should change your blogger ID to "fmarks"? I think that would be more accurate.

    As for the "party membership card"... change my question to ideology. Has Dennis changed his ideology? You probably knew what I meant but (again) chose to deliberately misinterpret what I said. Maybe not though, given the fact that Dennis got D marks in school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ wd/DS who came back with... "... The YouTube video you linked to proves me right. NP never said "we have to pass the law to know what's in it". Even you acknowledged RN's "error" when you correctly quote the video. NP actually said, "We have to pass the bill so *YOU* can find out what is in it".

      Okay Colonel, acknowledged you are technically correct.. So now explain WTF the REAL difference is please. BECAUSE, what the Pelosi was saying is that we have the answers (the ruling democrats at the time) so the bill must pass before YOU, the PEOPLE can know what's in it. PATHETIC don't you think Colonel?

      "What RN said was that Nancy Pelosi didn't read the bill and she (and her fellow Democrats) didn't know what was in it."

      Colonel, since you quoted what I said in a different post why don't you at have journalist courtesy to LINK the specific quote and the post in which it occurred? At that time I will address your comment further.

      Delete
    2. On top of this, there is the venerable Democratic Party rep. John Conyers, who said he was too lazy to read the bill. It's too hard to him. He barely has the strength to vote "yes", let alone read what he approves of.

      Delete
    3. None of these idiots read the bill, just like none of the people who voted for the Iraq resolution read the national intelligence estimate.......As for Ms. Pelosi, she was basically saying, "Trust us." If SHE knew what was in it, then SHE should have conveyed it to the public. Period.

      Delete
    4. And when you only have one option for a good or service, that is by definition a monopoly. Just because you've deluded yourself into thinking that government is somehow this benign and benevolent entity (despite thousands of years of evidence that it mostly ISN'T) that doesn't repress its citizens doesn't change fact this one iota.......And I gather that you disagree with Jimmy Hoffa and those other 2 labor leaders here.

      Delete
  16. Yes, Will. Single payer very strongly meets the definition of monopoly.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dennis: ...you are admitting that these individuals are overpaid (if their pay would go down once the minimum wage was abolished). Why not have the aid to those in poverty be given through a means-tested welfare program?

    The admission (not RN's, but only one of the reality of the situation) is that greedy employers will pay as little as they can get away with. Only those on the side of the plutocrats say not taking advantage of desperate people equals employees being "overpaid". Getting rid of the minimum wage would result in many companies paying the lowest wage possible (which would not by definition be "fair"). Many employers don't care about what is "fair", they care about how little employees will accept. Desperate people will often work for less than what is fair. A unfair wage is better than no wage at all.

    The welfare you seek is for those underpaying their workers. I am strongly opposed to this type of corporate welfare.

    Dennis: The DOMA comparison stands. You defended the minimum wage policy since it only hurt a small percentage of people. The same sort of logic can be used to defend the DOMA.

    It does not stand, as a minimum wage mostly helps people, while hurting very few. DOMA only hurts and helps no one.

    RN: so the bill must pass before YOU, the PEOPLE can know what's in it. PATHETIC don't you think Colonel?

    No, it is not "pathetic", it is reality. Many people work hard and are thus not able to follow things of a political nature closely. These people will only become aware of the impact (for the good) that the ACA will have on their lives when it actually starts affecting their lives.

    Dennis: As for Ms. Pelosi, she was basically saying, "Trust us". If SHE knew what was in it, then SHE should have conveyed it to the public. Period.

    Dennis has displayed here that he has no idea how democracy works. Yes, there is some trust that those we elect will actually work in the interest of the people who voted for them. Sometimes that trust is misplaced (many Repubs work in the interest of the Plutocrats who fund their elections instead of the people who voted for them). And NP did know what was in the legislation, but also knew most people do not pay attention to matters of a political nature. Thus they would not know what was in the bill until it was passed and had an impact on their lives. She simply spoke the truth. I don't know what your problem is with that.

    RN: Colonel, since you quoted what I said in a different post why don't you at have journalist courtesy to LINK the specific quote and the post in which it occurred?

    RN: Rep, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said 'we have to pass the law to know what's in it'.
    Post: The State of the Economy and ObamaCare. Wednesday, July 24, 2013

    Sorry for my breach in journalistic courtesy. I wasn't aware I had done that. I must have had two browser windows open at the same time... and read your comment in one window while replying to it in another. My profound apologies. For the record, I am not a Colonel, neither a military one nor a KFC one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me, the "trust us" remark was made by Will, not Dennis. I attributed it to Dennis in my comment above. My mistake. Anyway, in regard to Will's comment about me "deluding" myself as to the nature of government... it's called not being a Libertarian. I am not a Libertarian, thus I don't share YOUR delusions about government not being able to do any good. Yes, it is flawed, but it is also the only way the people can have any say in how our country is run. You're getting government out of the way "solution" puts the plutocrats in charge. Yes, they have bought off many of our government officials, but the solution isn't to turn things over to them completely!

      Delete
    2. I'm not putting the plutocrats (of which I totally put politicians in the category of) in charge. I'm putting the people in charge and largely eliminating the insurance companies. People will be allowed (with subsidies for the poor) to put away money in health savings accounts from an early age and that money will be allowed to accumulate until it is needed. I would supplement that with a catastrophic care provision for long term and/or expensive diseases like cancer. In every other area of health care in which the market is allowed to operate without the fetters of repressive government, the prices have come down and the quality has risen. Empowerment is what this country needs, not another lazy, anachronistic, and brain-dead policy like single payer.............And the major reason that corporations become as powerful as they do is that they suck off the teets of big government. Bush, Obama, etc. have given countless special favors to corporations and the fact of the matter is that a lot of these big corporations have actually written a lot of the regulations. Philip Morris, for example, those sons of bitches practically wrote the tobacco bill single-handedly and because of that they've actually STRENGTHENED their monopoly. The libertarian party - that's the real anti-crony/anti-"plutocrat" party.

      Delete
    3. Will: Great ideas. Or mine in which there are many more insurance companies. Or the idea where all insurance companies have to be actual non-profits.

      There's no way anyone who has read what we have espoused on could accuse us of favoring plutocrats here. In fact, anyone who wants more power for the central government favors plutocrats: as you said, politicians are in the category.

      Delete
  18. WD said: "Only those on the side of the plutocrats say not taking advantage of desperate people equals employees being "overpaid"."

    I was referring specifically to small businesses that are really on the edge... and here you come AGAIN with small business owners being plutocrats.

    "Many employers don't care about what is "fair", they care about how little employees will accept."

    The only people who have any idea what is fair are those involved in making the deals in question. You, me, anyone outside has no idea what is fair in this, and for us to assume so is 100% arrogant and 100% ignorant. However, WD, I welcome your right to determine what is fair in your own personal economic dealings. You are master of your own domain there, while you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to others.

    WD said: "Dennis: As for Ms. Pelosi, she was basically saying, "Trust us". If SHE knew what was in it, then SHE should have conveyed it to the public. Period."

    Hmmm. Time to get your attempted "insults" straight. The one who said that was Will "take no prisoners" Hart. Maybe he is Dennis now too. There's no reason why there can't be a whole bunch of us.

    But there is only one Colonel around here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. About the minimum wage and the dubious assertion that it helps people and hurts no-one.

    From the NBER:

    A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of Minimum Wages on Youth Employment

    "Overall, our results generally are consistent with the view that minimum wages cause employment losses among youth."

    To quote that old TV show theme song, kids are people too, you know.

    And on to the ACA. The Col said:

    "These people will only become aware of the impact (for the good) that the ACA will have on their lives when it actually starts affecting their lives."

    You must be referring to those people whose hours are cut from 40 to 30 due to the provision of Obamacare to discourage a full-time work week. Well, hot damn! Those people have lots more leisure hours per week, don't they? It's all for the good!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dennis: I was referring specifically to small businesses that are really on the edge ...AGAIN with small business owners being plutocrats.

    I can't do something AGAIN when I never did it once. Small business owners are not plutocrats. But they are restricted by their actions. When the plutocrats underpay their workers it effects the whole economy. If they paid their workers fairly there would be more money circulating, the economy would be better, and the small business owners could afford to pay their workers more... they wouldn't be "on the edge" because more people would be out there spending their money.

    Dennis: The only people who have any idea what is fair are those involved in making the deals in question.

    Ask many of these workers if they think their wages are fair... how many do you think would say yes? They accept the low wages because they have no choice. Dennis keeps insisting that the parties to wage negotiations are equals... an assertion which is utterly absurd. Especially when unemployment is high. Dennis should be smart enough to know this... but apparently Dennis is not. That or he is just lying because he likes to perpetuate the myth that fair wages are possible when many employers seek to pay as little as possible.

    Dennis: Hmmm. Time to get your attempted "insults" straight.

    I already corrected the mistake. Sorry, but only you are Dennis... the hypocrite who previously accused me of juvenile insults and now does the same by referring to me as "colonel" (example: Dennis objects to me calling John Boehner "boner").

    Dennis: About the minimum wage... [it] cause employment losses among youth. You must be referring to those people whose hours are cut from 40 to 30 due to the provision of Obamacare to discourage...

    There is a youth exception to the minimum wage. As for hour cutting "encouraged" by the ACA... there is no such provision. Companies that do this are acting out of greed, not due to any "encouragement".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually in some instances the workers have the distinct advantage. Physical and occupational therapists, people with degrees in the STEM fields, etc. can be very selective in their employment and believe me, they make out quite handsomely. If you have the skills and the education, you also have the leverage.

      Delete
    2. Exactly, Will.. those who are good at what they are doing.

      Delete
    3. WD: A company wanting to avoid paying a massive penalty is not "greed" at all.

      Delete
  21. I have a REAL issue with the term fair. It is a concept that can and often does mean what anybody WANTS it to mean. In other words it is subjective, what is fair to one may be considered unfair by another.

    When it comes to the minimum wage.. This is simply an arbitrary standard GENERALLY agreed to by the elected officials of the federal government, or the individual state if higher than the federal standard, that provides for a mimimum pay level for UNSKILLED entry level posistions, part time or full time.

    The reality is the minimum wage has little impact on a businesses decision to hire or not. The primary driving force is demand for a businesses product or services.

    Aside from labor generally accounting for typically 10% of a businesses overall operating costs, and minimum wage employees only a fraction of the 10% pethaps it is time to look elsewhere for areas to cut costs.

    I'm actually okay with the minimum wage law. There exists a plethora of federal government laws and regulations that should be seriously scrutinized that result in added cost far exceeding the impact of the minimum wage law.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Les: Question... if the minimum wage became $15, would you still think the negative impact of it would be nil?

    (You are spot on when it comes to "fair!")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well dmarks, let me answer this way... All things are relative; to something. In this instance wages. So, when and if the market value of the average skilled labor wage becomes say $45.00/hr. then yes I'd be fine with a $15.00/hr. minimum wage.

      I believe I said the lmpact was little, or insignificant, not nil. There is a difference.

      Delete
  23. I was thinking "not a lot" in general, so "nil" was not an attempt to put words in your mouth or keyboard.

    We will agree to disagree then: I think the minimum wage is a poor (as in inaccurate, sloppy) way to help the breadwinner in poverty who finds himself/herself in a low wage job.

    Truth 101 might have accused me of putting words in his mouth a lot more, but he was often obtuse or said really silly/odd things.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.