Democrats in Trouble - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

mudwhistle · #91 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by .3dontVoteParty

How many hours per week do you work, have you ever worked a double shift behind a cash register while you think about how to pay for your kid's appendix removal?

Know anybody in this situation?

Quote:

Most illegal immigrants enter legally, unfortunately we still have a system where more people are allowed in legally from norway then from Mexico, not including the ones who are allowed in from Mexico but aren't subject to minimum wage, driving down that same cashier's wages. Stem cells, abortion and ANWR should be a state's right issue, well, unless the status quo is not on your side at which point you think the government shoud make the decision. Keynesenomics suggests that taxes and government oversight are the driving forces of the economy, every Republican President in history except for GWB has agreed with this, actually look at all the major economic factors and they were all better under democratic presidents (except Carter) than Repubican, especially deficit spending. And if your a small business, you should have already realized this, but the offsets of Obama's health care plan would more than pay for your rise in taxes.

I won't get any benefit from Obama's health care plan. But I will get the tax increase. I already spend a third of my paycheck for health care. Any more deductions and I'll need to start looking for another job.

Quote:

Well, Obama's Iraq plan and McCains are almost identical, except that Obama opposed the start and McCain didn't, what happened to listening to the generals anyway, and Iraq already wants us to leave. Bin Laden is still at large and with a nice little safe haven, thanks GWB. And thanks GWB for torture, massive domestic surveillance program, extraordinary rendition, black sites, winning the hearts and minds, regime change, firing democratic justice department workers, outing CIA spy, line item veto, the Terry Chiavo act, Katrina victims can go eat cake, no bid contracts, did I mention going from record surplus to record deficit.

See, I recognize the vast differences between red and blue states, I love my guns, support heterosexual family values, and want people to work for their money, but when my country asks for my service, I step up with everything I got, including my friggin wallet.

Obama '08

You can take your friggen wallet and pay my friggen share then.

Obama's plan has drifted closer over time to McCain's.

The problem is Obama wants to keep a quick reaction force in country. This never worked in Somalia and it won't work in Iraq.

Imagine a force in a compound in all respects under seige, only leaving when trouble starts. Station a spy outside the gate with a cell-phone and he can alert any insurgents in any operation to their approach allowing them to get the fuck out of the area before anyone has a chance to catch them.

Tanngrisnir3 · #92 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Imagine a force in a compound in all respects under seige, only leaving when trouble starts. Station a spy outside the gate with a cell-phone and he can alert any insurgents in any operation to their approach allowing them to get the fuck out of the area before anyone has a chance to catch them.

Oh, right, like right now in both AFG and Iraq.

mudwhistle · #93 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Oh, right, like right now in both AFG and Iraq.

Afghanistan is set up different then Iraq.

Our troops are living with the people in Iraq. That was one of the changes the surge used to gain success.

When you mix with them they tend to become your friends.

We do it in Kuwait and we're doing it in Iraq.

Tanngrisnir3 · #94 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Afghanistan is set up different then Iraq.

Our troops are living with the people in Iraq. That was one of the changes the surge used to gain success.

When you mix with them they tend to become your friends.

We do it in Kuwait and we're doing it in Iraq.

Nevertheless, you're posited scenario can and does happen now in both places.

TSGracchus · #95 (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

I won't get any benefit from Obama's health care plan. . . . I already spend a third of my paycheck for health care.

These two statements contradict each other.

Obama's health care plan would have an optional federal health insurance program that you could buy into at your own discretion. If, as he claims, it would work similarly to what Congresscritters have now, it would be considerably cheaper and more affordable than private health insurance. As a result, it would work to depress premiums in the private insurance market. Thus, whether you choose to use the federal program or continue to use the private insurance your employer provides and partly pays for, your medical costs would be reduced.

The only way that you would get no benefit from Obama's health care plan is if you don't have insurance now and choose to continue having no insurance, either government or private, in the future. If you are spending a third of your paycheck on health care, that does not describe you.

mudwhistle · #96 (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

These two statements contradict each other.

Obama's health care plan would have an optional federal health insurance program that you could buy into at your own discretion. If, as he claims, it would work similarly to what Congresscritters have now, it would be considerably cheaper and more affordable than private health insurance. As a result, it would work to depress premiums in the private insurance market. Thus, whether you choose to use the federal program or continue to use the private insurance your employer provides and partly pays for, your medical costs would be reduced.

The only way that you would get no benefit from Obama's health care plan is if you don't have insurance now and choose to continue having no insurance, either government or private, in the future. If you are spending a third of your paycheck on health care, that does not describe you.

First of all his health care plan is in the early planning stages.

You don't know if I would be qualified. Some people are going to have to be left out because our government can't support everyone. My understanding was Obama was mainly concerned about the 43 million that aren't covered.

There are also some things about me you don't know, so you can't assume that I am going to be allowed to be qualified.

Another thing, who's gonna pay for it?

How much is it going to cost?

A proposal is only as good as the word of the person that makes it.

How good is Obama's word?

From what I can see it ain't worth nothing.

mudwhistle · #97 (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Nevertheless, you're posited scenario can and does happen now in both places.

No, we aren't in a siege mentality anymore in Iraq.

Our guys are out there with the Iraqis.

Maybe you should stick to things you know about and quit making proclamations that you can't back up.

Imperator · #98 (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

These two statements contradict each other.

Obama's health care plan would have an optional federal health insurance program that you could buy into at your own discretion. If, as he claims, it would work similarly to what Congresscritters have now, it would be considerably cheaper and more affordable than private health insurance. As a result, it would work to depress premiums in the private insurance market. Thus, whether you choose to use the federal program or continue to use the private insurance your employer provides and partly pays for, your medical costs would be reduced.

The only way that you would get no benefit from Obama's health care plan is if you don't have insurance now and choose to continue having no insurance, either government or private, in the future. If you are spending a third of your paycheck on health care, that does not describe you.

the goal it to use the gov to drive private funding out of biz. facilitating the gov.'s full take over...Medicare etc. in which btw there is like a 30% yes 30% fraud rate is just part and parcel of that and the model.

TSGracchus · #99 (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

First of all his health care plan is in the early planning stages.

True in the sense that he hasn't even been elected yet. However, it's quite well formed. It could change, but I don't see any reason to expect it to, barring political opposition in Congress -- from Republicans, most likely.

Quote:

You don't know if I would be qualified. Some people are going to have to be left out because our government can't support everyone.

The government wouldn't actually be supporting anyone. Anyone who opts in to the federal medical program would be paying for it themselves. (Although there might be waivers of premiums for the poor, I suppose.) The only costs would be administrative. Trust the federal bureaucracy to make that ten times as expensive as really necessary, of course, but you're still not faced with massive net tax outlays for medical costs themselves.

That answers all of the rest of your exceptions, barring of course the cheap-shot throwaway line at the end, which neither deserves nor requires an answer.

Imperator: Yes, you are exactly right. This is indeed a way to implement, in the long run, a single-payer socialized medicine system. Obama, or someone advising him, figured out that no mandatory plan would be needed, the economy of scale available to the federal government would suffice by itself. People would voluntarily opt in to the system simply because it will be cheaper and better.

As I believe a single-payer system is exactly what we need, I have no problem with that.

mudwhistle · #**100** (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

True in the sense that he hasn't even been elected yet. However, it's quite well formed. It could change, but I don't see any reason to expect it to, barring political opposition in Congress -- from Republicans, most likely.

The government wouldn't actually be supporting anyone. Anyone who opts in to the federal medical program would be paying for it themselves. (Although there might be waivers of premiums for the poor, I suppose.) The only costs would be administrative. Trust the federal bureaucracy to make that ten times as expensive as really necessary, of course, but you're still not faced with massive net tax outlays for medical costs themselves.

That answers all of the rest of your exceptions, barring of course the cheap-shot throwaway line at the end, which neither deserves nor requires an answer.

Imperator: Yes, you are exactly right. This is indeed a way to implement, in the long run, a single-payer socialized medicine system. Obama, or someone advising him, figured out that no mandatory plan would be needed, the economy of scale available to the federal government would suffice by itself. People would voluntarily opt in to the system simply because it will be cheaper and better.

As I believe a single-payer system is exactly what we need, I have no problem with that.

You're gonna have to show me why I should trust Obama.

Other then that my statement stands.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**101** (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

No, we aren't in a siege mentality anymore in Iraq.

Our guys are out there with the Iraqis.

Maybe you should stick to things you know about and quit making proclamations that you can't back up.

I'm talking about your scenario with troop movements being reported by operatives on the ground w/cell phones, etc. I have several friends in both places who have mentioned this to me.

Maybe you should actually understand the things you post instead of simply blathering and hoping no one notices.

mudwhistle · #**102** (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

I'm talking about your scenario with troop movements being reported by operatives on the ground w/cell phones, etc. I have several friends in both places who have mentioned this to me.

Maybe you should actually understand the things you post instead of simply blathering and hoping no one notices.

I understand what I posted.

You just don't understand the tactics that are being used and how they apply to the theatre of operation.

The tactical changes the surge brought assured that it doesn't matter as much if some insurgent has a cell phone because by the time he gets done using it......it's too late.

The key reason is because our troops are living with the Iraqis and many times reacting and eliminating targets as soon as they attack or in some cases before they can launch an attack. Cells are being reported and broken up before they can establish themselves.

The way Obama wants to do it is similar to the way it was done in Somalia when I was there. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Like I said, try sticking to things you know about.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**103** (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

I understand what I posted.

You just don't understand the tactics that are being used and how they apply to the theatre of operation.

I understand what you claimed as a possible future scenario, and I understand what I have been told by people there and people who have just returned from there.

Quote:

The tactical changes the surge brought assured that it doesn't matter as much if some insurgent has a cell phone because by the time he gets done using it......it's too late.

The key reason is because our troops are living with the Iraqis and many times reacting and eliminating targets as soon as they attack or in some cases before they can launch an attack. Cells are being reported and broken up before they can establish themselves.

The problem is that you assume that is the situation everywhere in Iraq. It's not, so why try to portray it as such?

Quote:

The way Obama wants to do it is similar to the way it was done in Somalia when I was there. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Like I said, try sticking to things you know about.

Yawn. What you claimed might happen, in a detrimental way, actually is happening.

Don't quit your day job, Armchair General.

mudwhistle · #**104** (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

I understand what you claimed as a possible future scenario, and I understand what I have been told by people there and people who have just returned from there.

The problem is that you assume that is the situation everywhere in Iraq. It's not, so why try to portray it as such?

Yawn. What you claimed might happen, in a detrimental way, actually is happening.

Don't quit your day job, Armchair General.

I've read Obama's tactical plans for Iraq.

They are the same play it safe remain on the defensive tactics Clinton used to turn Somalia into a disaster.

I'm not assuming anything.

But you are.

The tactics I mentioned were used in Falluga and now it is so secure we've been able to turn it almost completely over the the Iraqi Security Forces.

Oh, one more thing. I suggest you stop with the name calling like "Child" and "Armchair General".

The rules prevent me from calling you what you really are. And name calling doesn't solve a thing.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**105** (**permalink**) 09-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

I've read Obama's tactical plans for Iraq.

Irrelevant to the current situation.

Quote:

They are the same play it safe remain on the defensive tactics Clinton used to turn Somalia into a disaster.

Irrelevant to the current situation.

Quote:

I'm not assuming anything.

Of course you are. You posited that a certain set of circumstances could occur if something happened.

When you were reminded that what you feared might happen actually already is happening, you ignore it, which is, of course, your right to do.

Quote:

But you are.

You're right. I assumed you can actually accept the fact that one must actually back up one's own assertions.

Quote:

The tactics I mentioned were used in Falluga and now it is so secure we've been able to turn it almost completely over the the Iraqi Security Forces.

First it was Baghdad. Now it's Falluja. Perhaps you've heard there's more to the country than those two places.

Quote:

The rules prevent me from calling you what you really are. And name calling doesn't solve a thing.

Then I suggest you cease your endless stream of thinly-disguised aspersions and attacks on character that fall juuuuuuust short of actually stating what you mean. They're quite obvious and they really don't contribute to anything.